The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

The power of the Web is in its universality. Access by everyone regardless of disability is an essential aspect.

Yes, because we all live in an idealistic world right? If you don't think the web is a primarily visual medium, your just fooling yourself.

GUI's, flash, graphical ads and content and other things are made to be visually appealing. Many of the new content technologies that are upcoming are done to do visually appealing.

Interactive flash/java is usually visual, you can't play this game or interact with this office cartoon, unless you have vision.

Despite what the web idealistically should be, it has developed into a largely visual medium. The web being completely Universal is BS in a realistic world, you can't access certain elements without certain senses. Now target adding an alt tag here and there is not unreasonable.

But to expect all designers to design with everyone in mind for current technology and upcoming technology is ridiculous. The technology simply moves too fast, your code will never be compatible with everything.

There is always this "well if we can't do absolutely everything perfectly all at once, we shouldn't bother doing any of it" attitude. Nobody is saying that blind people should be able to play Flash games - but that doesn't mean they can be ignored by every web site out there.

So....by my count a blind person has to have 1 or 2 people help him/her shop in a "brick & mortar" store--one to drive him/her, and one to tell explain the products to him/her

But now someone is suing because it takes 1 person to explain the products on the online store to them (because they can't "see" the alt tags and whatnot)?

so what, target will send one of its employees to every blind web visitor's site to explain and operate the site to them?

you seem to be missing the point: in the first case, there's nothing that target can realistically do to make things better (despite adding a few short descriptions in braille, perhaps...but it still makes the physical shop itself a difficult environment for them to navigate - funnily enough, that's exactly why blind users are more likely to want to buy online); in the second case, it takes minimal effort on target's site to remove the unnecessary barriers they've put up on their site.

Without vision, your always going to have trouble reading an online site no matter how good a site is or how good your screenreader is.

that's bullcack. i assume you have extensive experience in the field, archie?

A blind person generally needs an assisstant to help him shop at a store. Is it too much to have that same assistant help him navigate a webpage and buy a product?

because on a well built site they don't need any assistance. don't you see that this is the crux of the argument? if a site implements even minimal accessibility practices, it lets blind (and certainly other disabled) users be autonomous and go about their task without putting any unnecessary barriers up against them.

is an online shop going to send an assistant to every blind user's home to help them navigate the site?

And about javascript. Javascript has many uses, do you really expect developers to stop using it because blind people can't see it through a screen reader?

screen readers can cope with well written javascript. ever heard of DOM scripting and graceful degradation?

There are many online technologies and many more to come, and some of them will require sight to experience.

and those are not at issue here. what is at issue is the fact that they're using technologies that, if used correctly, cater for both sighted and non sighted users, but they willingly chose not to cater for this second group. there is absolutely no technical reason why target's site can't be made accessible. heck, i could go through it in a week and fix the top level pages. it's not rocket surgery.

so what, target will send one of its employees to every blind web visitor's site to explain and operate the site to them?

you seem to be missing the point: in the first case, there's nothing that target can realistically do to make things better (despite adding a few short descriptions in braille, perhaps...but it still makes the physical shop itself a difficult environment for them to navigate - funnily enough, that's exactly why blind users are more likely to want to buy online); in the second case, it takes minimal effort on target's site to remove the unnecessary barriers they've put up on their site.

I don't think I am missing the point. I did not suggest that Target would send employees to explain the site...I'm suggesting that it takes either an equal number of, or approximately half the 3rd party helpers to assist a blind person shopping online at Target as it would in the actual store. You (and others) keep harping on how easy it would be to add in the alt tags, etc., which in my eye is NOT the point at all. Should Target's web developers have done all this in the first place? Yes, as a matter of coding standards. The lawfulness and the amount of effort involved are completely different ideas. Can we please put aside this argument, as it really has no bearing on the debate?

...And what do you mean that there is "nothing that Target can realistically do to make things better (despite adding a few short descriptions in braille, perhaps".....

Isn't putting braille on the products in the brick-and-mortar store the equivalent of the virtual upgrades you keep suggesting? I can't even imagine how hard it would be for a blind person to shop in a normal store, which to me seems much more important.

My whole point is that hearing ANYONE (disabled or not) claiming that shopping online at Target is their God-given American right is laughable, at best.

What this is is another case of lawyers and a money-grubbing plantiff (unless this is one of those cases where lawyers decided to sue and sought out someone to act as a plantiff) trying to get rich off of nothing.

How about a letter or email to Target letting them know that their website is deficient? How about a complaint to whatever government body ensures compliance with handicapped accessibility laws? No. They've got to go straight for the lawsuit. Why? Money! Rampant greed, nothing more.

I'm going to reply to some of the more off-topic points that have been brought up lately:

Blind people playing video games - I actually knew a kid who was legally blind but would play Nintendo back in the day. He had to sit about 6 inches from the TV and he could only really make out blobs of color, but he loved playing.

Javascript and Flash - There are easy ways to degrade JS and Flash gracefully to fall back to regular HTML or text, which if done right can help blind users gain understanding of what's going on in the page. Yes it might not be a perfect replacement, but that's not what accessibility is about. Again, it's about creating a useful experience for those with disabilities.

What this is is another case of lawyers and a money-grubbing plantiff (unless this is one of those cases where lawyers decided to sue and sought out someone to act as a plantiff) trying to get rich off of nothing.

How about a letter or email to Target letting them know that their website is deficient? How about a complaint to whatever government body ensures compliance with handicapped accessibility laws? No. They've got to go straight for the lawsuit. Why? Money! Rampant greed, nothing more.

It's disgusting.

Do you even know the first thing about researching the topic to which you are discussing?

No, you saw a link to the thread on the forum's front page, scanned it briefly, jumped to a conclusion then posted your reply.

Go back to read the article, take particular note of the part mentioning the discussions that went on with Target since May 2005 and how those discussions broke down in January of this year. Still think straight for the lawsuit?

Octal - All your base-8 belong to us"Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do." - Bruce Lee

...it's about creating a useful experience for those with disabilities.

It's about making reasonable attempts to cater for the blind, the deaf and any other disabled person. It is not about shutting down websites, digging up roads, banning computer games or some other extreme ideas some of you have.

Put another way; if it's reasonable to expect a disabled person to purchase the goods or use the service then it should be reason enough (indeed UK law demands) to cater for them.

Octal - All your base-8 belong to us"Knowing is not enough, we must apply.
Willing is not enough, we must do." - Bruce Lee

Whats ignorant is thinking disabled people are normal. They are not normal. Stop drinking the PC happy juice. The idea that everyone, regardless of their personal condition, has a "right" to the exact same life is one of the most ridiculous notions of the modern era. Here in the US we spend 10x more per year to send one disabled kid to a normal highschool than we spend on the smartest kid in that highschool. Then we wonder why our kids aren't as smart as those from other countries. Chances are the disabled kid probably doesn't even know the difference, its only so his parents can feel their kid is normal.

Ignorant, uneducated, bigoted and plain stupid. Did it take you a long time to reach this depth of idiocy?

Everyone is not the same. The world isn't some genetically engineered commune and we didn't all come from the same mold. People are different and they have different capabilities. Should grocery stores not put things on the top shelf because short people can't reach? Should the computer illiterate (perhaps illiterate because of a mental defect) sue websites for not having a brick and mortar presence?

It's in their interests to make their products available to everyone that might want to buy them. It's only the ignorance of a few morons who would deprive them of the opportunity based on physical characteristics.

There is no right to shop online, there is no right to shop at Target.

There is no right to refuse to sell to someone based on prejudice. Your country has laws that protect the rights of the individual, laws that far better people than you seem to be have died for.

A business should strive to be accessible so that they can get more customers, but they should not be sued because someone is too lazy to shop somewhere else. In fact I'm willing to bet the guy could have spent 5 minutes and found a phone number and called and placed a phone order.

But he shouldn't have to. If there is an online outlet that sells to able bodied persons then it should take all reasonable steps to ensure it sells to disabled persons.

Would you be so forgiving if the owner decided to exclude black people? How about homosexuals? Maybe people from East Lansing?

The fact is Target, the company, is accessible. If you're blind you can go to the store, or order over the phone. If you're housebound you can order over the phone or via the Internet. If you're homeless with no phone or computer you can go to the store. Its unreasonable to expect all options to work for all people all of the time, but atleast one option should work for all people all of the time, and it does.

It's unreasonable to not expect simple modifications to be made in what is a very reasonable time frame of 10 months. It's only the inadequate developer that would not consider the needs of the users at all times. Good business models take into account the customer's requirements.

What this is is another case of lawyers and a money-grubbing plantiff (unless this is one of those cases where lawyers decided to sue and sought out someone to act as a plantiff) trying to get rich off of nothing.

How about a letter or email to Target letting them know that their website is deficient? How about a complaint to whatever government body ensures compliance with handicapped accessibility laws? No. They've got to go straight for the lawsuit. Why? Money! Rampant greed, nothing more.

It's disgusting.

The named inividual is simply there because they need a named person. It is extremely unlikely that he personally will get any large sum of money out of this, as it clearly states it is for all blind persons in the state. Once they win, as they deserve to do, other stores country wide who have not made their sites accessible, will upgrade them, and every visually impaired person who shops online will gain.

Also Unit7285 posted a link to the case document http://www.dralegal.org/downloads/ca..._complaint.pdf
where you will notice it clearly says the National Federation of the Blind, the National Federation of the Blind of California, on behalf of their members, and Bruce Sexton on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated

This is not one guy trying to make a fast buck as has been suggested several times in this thread, it is national federations trying to draw attention (rather successfully I'd say) to problems, and trying to get them sorted. Read the facts before commenting on the case!

(And read the rest of the thread as well, rather than the last couple of posts.)

And as for the letter and email to Target telling them about their site's problems - they did that - a year ago. They got into negotiations, and eventually Target didn't bother doing anything about it. Hence they are forced to use the law, after trying to get them to sort things the easy way, out of court.

I think the likeliest result will be that Target will settle out of court, probably just paying the costs, plus a donation to each National Federation, and alter their site.
Then Target will say how wonderful they are as a store, catering for blind users so well....

When I last posted I observed that I did not think the lawsuit had a leg to stand on, and I still feel that way. It has nothing to do with whether or not I think Target should make their site accessible or not. I think that Target should from a business standpoint, and I think the way to make this happen is from stockholder pressure and customer pressure, not in a court of law. I don't like Target as a company, I won't shop there, yet I hope that the lawsuit looses soundly!

A small example of what does work with Target. Have you ever seen the bellringers out in front of stores at Christmas time? In my town they are everywhere. They get support because the donations collected can be seen going back to the community in the form of rent assistance for the poor, food banks, etc. Target refused to allow them in front of Target stores in our community as it was "against company policy". The community, quietly and without a lot of fanfare of a court case, solved the problem. They boycotted Target. They simply quit shopping there at the busiest season of the year and they quitely let Target know why. It did not take long before there was a bellringer there. So rather than suing, organize a boycott. Demonstrate in terms that they understand that the users are an economic power. Based on the responses in this thread, my guess would be that a lot of sighted people would join that boycott as well. If you want to get a business's attention, hurt them where it really matters, in the bottom line. A lawsuit has a damage amount limited by law, especially a class action, a boycott has no economic limit on damages.

Never put off until tomorrow what you can do
the day after tomorrow. ~ Mark Twain

The community, quietly and without a lot of fanfare of a court case, solved the problem. They boycotted Target. They simply quit shopping there at the busiest season of the year and they quitely let Target know why. It did not take long before there was a bellringer there. So rather than suing, organize a boycott.

but there IS legislation in place that, as the plaintifs argue, does require target to make changes to their site. so, even if they're breaking the law, you say a boycott should have been staged, rather than a suit?

Target has always been committed to respecting diversity. Our definition is broad, inclusive and focused on recognizing and appreciating the individuality of every team member, guest and community member. As one of our core values, our commitment to diversity is not something we simply talk about; it is something we act on.

We are focused on continuing to make diversity an integral part of our culture at Target—from the way team members relate to each other, to how we serve our guests and communities, to pursuing the right business opportunities for our shareholders.

Our ultimate goal is to ensure that our commitment to diversity is integrated into every level of our operations because it is good for our business—and because it is the right thing to do.

Target will remain dedicated to hiring a high-performing, diverse team, welcoming all guests into our stores, offering products that reflect the needs of all guests and giving back to the communities where we do business.

We have a strong commitment to diversity, and that commitment will continue to grow.

but there IS legislation in place that, as the plaintifs argue, does require target to make changes to their site. so, even if they're breaking the law, you say a boycott should have been staged, rather than a suit?

@Keriam: exactly how are blind users supposed to boycott a website that is impossible for them to use?

I've noticed a troubling trend by those opposed to Target being forced to make their site more accessible conveniently ignoring the repeated posting of the quote by Tim Berners-Lee who invented the World Wide Web. WAI/WCUG came about not as an after thought to make the web useful to blind or disabled users, but because developers were failing to take the time to understand how to properly user HTML specifications in the first place.

FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, the WWW and HTML specifications were designed and intended to help level the playing field for ALL users such that a site could be as accessible by a blind person as it was a sighted person. Back in 1995 my mentor took great pains to teach me the logic behind HTML and how to properly structure HTML documents to make them logical to all users regardless of whether or not they used a graphical browser like Mosaic a text reader like Lynx or a dynamic Braille display.

The problem is that most people who have become "web developers", most early HTML generating programs and most HTML instructors NEVER took the time to understand how HTML was supposed to be used and the theories behind HTML. If people had been trained to properly use HTML from the beginning and WYSIWYG HTML editors like FrontPage, Dreamweaver, etc. had been designed with HTML theories in mind, the accessibility issues with Target's website would not exist and Target would not be in the place they are now.

IF YOU TRULY BELIEVE THAT IT IS UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT TARGET TO GO BACK AND DESIGN THEIR SITE PROPERLY THE WAY IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE FIRST PLACE WITHOUT WAI/WCUG BEING IN PLACE THEN YOU SHOULD GET OUT OF THE BUSINESS OF WEB DESIGN/DEVELOPMENT! Web developers should have a working theoretical understanding of HTML structure and why each HTML tag exists and how it was intended to be used.

The fact that in 2006 the vast majority of websites still do not validate to the most basic level of HTML/CSS specifications is a sign of how sloppy and ignorant most web developers are. I blame this on the schools that teach HTML, I blame it on WYSIWYG editors making people lazy and I blame this on the HTML developers themselves for not taking the time to learn their trade.

Web development is a specialized skill set. There should be EVERY EXPECTATION that anyone who does web development professionally will have the basic skill sets required to do the job right the first time around. If you do not have the technical knowledge to know how to write HTML/CSS code without the assistance of a WYSIWYG editor like Dreamweaver or FrontPage and you are calling your self a professional web developer, either go back to school and learn the fundamentals or get out of this business! I am not saying you have to use a text editor to do all of your web development, but I am saying you should be as comfortable writing valid code in a text editor as you are using your favorite WYSIWYG editor.

People get your heads out of the sand. Target's issues boil down to very simple web development best practices that existed from the very day Tim Berners-Lee released the very first HTML specification. From day one Tim Berners-Lee had intended the WWW to be accessible by everyone regardless of physical abilities.

The web was NEVER intended to be the sole domain of those who had sight and could use a mouse. This doesn't mean that people are expected to make every Flash game completely usable to the visually impaired, nor does it mean you have to write out complete dissertations describing every image on your site. What it does mean is that if you are going to use images as navigational elements or to present really critical concepts (like what the product is you are selling) then you need to provide alternative text. What it does mean that if you are going to use a server side image map you need to provide alternative forms of navigation. It also means that you had better make sure someone isn't forced to use a mouse to click on form submit buttons. The "web developers/designers" who developed Target's site should be ashamed of what they produced and the bring shame upon the profession of web development.